(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the vires of Section 24 A of the U.P. Excise Act, as amended by the Uttarakhand (The United Provinces Excise Act, 1910) (Adaptation and Modification order 2002) and Amendment Act, 2018, whereby power has been conferred on the Excise Commissioner to grant to any person a licence or licence for the exclusion or other privilege of, among others, manufacturing or of supply of wholesale, or of both, or selling by retail or of selling by wholesale or of selling by retail at shop any foreign liquor in any locality.
(2.) The contention, urged on behalf of the petitioner, is that such an amendment violates the law laid down in State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. K. Balu and others wherein the Supreme Court, among others, directed that no shop for the sale of liquor shall be (i) visible from National or State highways; (ii) directly accessible from a National or State Highway; and (iii) situated within a distance of 500 metres of the outer edge of the National or State highway or of a service lane along the Highway.
(3.) Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that on an application filed by the State of Uttarakhand seeking a modification, similar to that of the State of Meghalaya and Sikkim, the Supreme Court had, in its order in MA Nos. 470- 4722017 dated 04.08.2017, accepted the prayer urged on behalf of the State Government with respect to the districts of Uttarkashi, Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri, Pauri Garhwal, Pithoragarh, Champawat, Bageshwar and Almora; in so far as district Nainital is concerned, the Supreme Court held that it deserved to be extended only to four tehsils i.e. Nainital, Dhari, Kosya Kutauli and Betalghat and, with respect to district Dehradun, it deserved to be extended only to three tehsils i.e. Chakrata, Kalsi and Tiuni. The Supreme Court further clarified that the concession was not being extended to districts Haridwar and Udham Singh Nagar.